Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Silver Knife who wrote (10869)	4/29/1999 10:00:00 PM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

"The article also said Valence had a history of insiders and underwriters making money ............" This would suggest a different spin on the insider purchases, would it not lwstoddard. It sure became quiet.

To: Silver Knife who wrote (10869)	4/29/1999 10:15:00 PM
From: Pallisard	Respond to of 27311

This suit was dismissed in 1996 with prejudice, and later summary judgements were ruled in favor of the company and defendants. The suit has been on appeal for 2 years, I believe. It will be another two or three years before it's resolved in any case. After the shareholders meeting, there was a small discussion about the topic and I recall someone saying that an appeal would also be dismissed. I don't know whether that was Lev or one of the attendees.

To: Silver Knife who wrote (10869)	4/30/1999 8:57:00 AM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

SilverKnife(good id by the way, heh): To which I respond: So the lawsuit resurrects itself, eh? So it goes. This type of suit occurs every single time a stock falls from grace. I can point to innummerable stocks that are now either going through, or have gone through, this type of litigious shareholder rage. It has become the norm, to the delight of the legal industry. Indeed; much as the legal industry is now salivating over that 30 day waiting period before pursuing juicy possibilities in Colorado, so too do they solicit business clientele when a "fall from grace" occurs, without benefit of ANY waiting period. Now, what's a "fall from grace"? A speculative company prematurely(on hindsight) makes comments of greatness ahead for the itself and its products, dazzling potential shareholders with visions of avaricious delight. This promise subsequently falls far short, causing a valuation crash and spawning a legion of grievances manifested in such as the Wexlers of the world. This is a normal part of the cycle as it relates to business world speculations. Some folks simply cannot accept responsibility for their speculative actions, and must "share the pain" as broadly as possible. Of course, if'n the company purposely mis-lead, well, then they get what they deserve, and let there be suits all around times five, eh? HEH! But I do not think that this was the case with VLNC. Yes they were aggressive in their earlier stance of where the company stood, and yes they took a beating when issues of a technical nature came to light. But fraud, and its implicit assumption of collusion by insiders in the company in a pact to remove coinage from the blindly greedy all while recognizing the technical problems? Nah, me don't think so. Still, one thing is clear. The technical problems plus the legal action succeeded in one very important respect. It muzzled VLNC while allowing them to continue to overcome the problems encountered. It also made them opaque to all outsiders and effectively buried them in the Streets eyes. Subsequently, ~4 years have rolled by. Indications now are that they're just about set to roll. I say indications because no one in the company is on public record in the manner they in past times employed. They're mum. And just as interesting, the legal suit has now resurrected itself. Can we say hmmmmmm...? Why? Because just as this suit surmounts a barrier, it's about to encounter the possibility that the defendant will now soon start commercial mass-manufacture of the very product touted 4 years ago. If this is true, it lays to rest the claim of fraud for all time, although it'll be sure to leave some old, disgruntled former shareholders in its wake. Bottom line? As simplistic as this sounds, P.O.'s will solve everything...... Don't 'cha just luuuuv speculating? Highlow